Org bringing in a man at a higher level than me to do half my job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op - to answer some qs:
- I have only been there a year
- I know he is being paid more due to his title and the salary bands for that title

1 year really isn't enough time in my opinion for you to ask for a pay increase. Put another year in at the rescoped role then ask. I thought you might have been there for a while if you had so many functions under your control.

Agreed. Sounds like you were in an interim role as the organization figured out its needs.

The huffing and puffing seems a bit premature.

Are you very new in your career?

your q makes no sense. why would op be new in career if she oversees so many functions? and would someone not know if they were in an interim role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op - they said it was bc part of my remit (that I’m keeping) became more important to the company so they want me to be able to more fully focus on it. But clearly if I was successfully running the whole thing they would not need this additional person. Myself and this man are extremely different backgrounds, is another element.

Really no matter how you look at it, it’s not great. And they have my sympathy if they in fact have an underperforming executive that they have to solve for (me). But I do question the need for him to be paid more than me to do half of what I have been doing.

Bs. You became more important but someone else gets the promotion over you? Are you reporting to the same boss or the new guy? How was your performance being measured exactly and were you meeting the numeric targets? What about soft “happiness” type targets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

Except it sounds like no matter what the volume of work is, the man is being paid more than op to do half of what op has been doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

In an environment that doesn't want to pay women equally, if women try to negotiate, they will be punished. It's not about "negotiating salary better." I'm female and the negative responses I've had to trying to negotiate salary shocked the men I know. It was fine, I just left and made the money I knew I was worth, but if a company is consistently paying men more for the same work, "salary negotiation" is the pretext, not the explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

In an environment that doesn't want to pay women equally, if women try to negotiate, they will be punished. It's not about "negotiating salary better." I'm female and the negative responses I've had to trying to negotiate salary shocked the men I know. It was fine, I just left and made the money I knew I was worth, but if a company is consistently paying men more for the same work, "salary negotiation" is the pretext, not the explanation.

But OP may as well try to negotiate salary and level before just leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op - they said it was bc part of my remit (that I’m keeping) became more important to the company so they want me to be able to more fully focus on it. But clearly if I was successfully running the whole thing they would not need this additional person. Myself and this man are extremely different backgrounds, is another element.

Really no matter how you look at it, it’s not great. And they have my sympathy if they in fact have an underperforming executive that they have to solve for (me). But I do question the need for him to be paid more than me to do half of what I have been doing.

Maybe they split the functions and hired him to take over what they see as the current highest value functions.

They left you with stuff to do more thoroughly than before...that "focus" is a negative signal. Maybe those will become more strategically important maybe not.

You are right to look.

If you feel you have nothing to lose, might have a meeting where thevsgenda is you are excited about their indication of growing importance for the functions you manage and ask for targets and milestones tied to increased salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

In an environment that doesn't want to pay women equally, if women try to negotiate, they will be punished. It's not about "negotiating salary better." I'm female and the negative responses I've had to trying to negotiate salary shocked the men I know. It was fine, I just left and made the money I knew I was worth, but if a company is consistently paying men more for the same work, "salary negotiation" is the pretext, not the explanation.

But OP may as well try to negotiate salary and level before just leaving.

Go for it. But "maybe the men are just better at negotiating" is not what's happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.

PP. You're right, it is a bind. That's why it is hard to bring it up. Maybe I need to get up with the times, but I remember growing up in the 80's/90s that one of the reasons women (not all women of course) made less than men was that they weren't good salary negotiators. Men had been doing it for decades, even centuries, and women still had an "I'm just lucky to be here" attitude and wouldn't haggle.

Maybe it's no longer prevalent due to gender, but I have definitely seen where 2 people do pretty much the same job and the pay disparity is pretty big because one person negotiated salary better than the other.

As for OP, we've now seen that she has only been there a year. That's not very long and she is still building her reputation within the organization. But again, it's never a good look to complain about salary when you are being given LESS work.

In an environment that doesn't want to pay women equally, if women try to negotiate, they will be punished. It's not about "negotiating salary better." I'm female and the negative responses I've had to trying to negotiate salary shocked the men I know. It was fine, I just left and made the money I knew I was worth, but if a company is consistently paying men more for the same work, "salary negotiation" is the pretext, not the explanation.

I had offer rescinded when I tried to negotiate a 10k raise. The total comp was into the 200k so 10k was a super small reasonable ask.